LOW 
Speech. 


JX 

321 
L8 


SPEECH 


OF 


HON.  HENRY  R.  LOW. 


ON 


The  Right  of  Congress  to  Determine  the  Qualification  of  its 

Members  and  to  Determine  when  the  Public  Safety 

will  Permit  the  Admission  of  Representatives 

from  the  States  Lately  in  Rebellion, 


AND 


In  Senate,  March  14, 1866. 


ALBANY: 

VTEBD,  PARSONS  AND  COMPANY,  PRINTERS. 
I860. 


LIBRARY 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 
SANTA  BAHBARA1 


SPEECH 


The  Senate  took  up  the  special  order  being 
the  resolutions  on  National  Affairs  reported  by 
Mr.  FOLGER  from  the  Select  Committee. 

Mr.  LOW  said : 

Mr.  President :  If  the  resolutions  which  have 
been  presented,  and  which  are  now  under  dis- 
cussion, came  up  in  my  opinion  fully  to  the 
spirit  of  those  which  should  be  presented  and 
adopted,  I  would  content  myself  and  feel  that  I 
had  discharged  my  duty,  with  casting  a  silent 
rote  in  their  favor.  But  believing  that  while 
the  resolutions,  so  far  as  they  go,  are  right,  they 
yet  do  not  fully  meet  and  represent  the  great 
sentiment  of  the  country,  I  cannot  consent  to 
maintain  a  position  of  even  apparent  indiffer- 
ence to  that  fact.  I  see  my  duty  the  more 
clearly  because  of  the  remarks  which  fell  from 
the  lips  of  the  Senator  from  the  Twentieth,  on  a 
recent  evening.  The  time  has  come  when  we 
should  speak  plainly,  in  the  declaration  of 
some  clear  and  unmistakable  line  of  policy, 
and  when  no  hesitation  or  equivocation 
will  do.  It  is  not,  indeed,  a  time  when  we 
should  indulge  in  crimination  or  recrimination, 
or  when  we  should  say  or  do  anything  calculat- 
ed to  prolong  or  intensify  the  memories  of  the 
great  struggle  ;  bat  a  time  when  we  should  meet 
and  look  squarely  in  the  face  the  important 
issue  which  that  struggle  forced  upon  us  and 
has  transmitted  to  us.  Because  while  it  may 
not  be  prudent  to  adopt  a  policy  in  reference  to 
any  matters  whioh  do  not  affect  the  great  funda- 
mental principles  of  our  government,  it  is  mani- 
fest that  we  must  have  a  care  for  all  that  does 
bear  upon  these  principles,  if  we  hope  to  con- 
tinue our  existence  as  a  nation.  What  we  must 
do,  therefore,  is  to  adopt  a  policy.  And  when 


I  say  "  we,"  I  mean  those  who  represent  the 
great  patriotic  and  union  loving  sentiment  of 
the  north.  This  policy  upon  which  we 
are  to  decide,  and  our  action  in  reference 
to  which  is  to  affect  the  life  of  the 
nation  not  only  in  the  present,  but  for  genera- 
tions to  come,  relates  to  what  is  popularly 
known  as  reconstruction,  or  to  the  terms  upon 
which  we  will  admit  back  to  their  privileges  in 
the  Union,  the  people,  or  any  portion  of  the 
people,  who  have  lately  been  in  armed  rebellion 
against  it,  and  engaged  in  seeking  its  overthrow. 
It  is  the  most  important  problem  that  has  ever 
agitated  the  people  of  this  country, — I  may  say, 
with  truth,  of  any  country  on  the  face  of  the 
globe.  Growing  out  of  the  war,  and  directly 
associated  with  the  interests  that  then  appealed 
so  closely  to  our  hearts,  it  must,  in  its  discus- 
sion and  settlement,  attract  the  attention  of  the 
world. 

The  question,  sir,  is  this :  Shall  tee  surrender 
this  nation  aad  all  its  sacred  interests,  and  all 
the  advantages  of  our  position  to  its  tuemiet  f 
I  do  not  think  I  am  mistaken  in  my  judgment 
as  to  how  the  people  feel  upon  this  subject.  We 
have  fought  too  long  and  suffered  too  much,  to 
now  yield  up  the  fruits  of  the  victory  which  we 
have  achieved.  And  this  is  the  great  and  over- 
shadowing danger  of  the  hour.  In  my  judgment, 
the  policy  whioh  is  in  some  measure  supported 
here,  and  which  is  sought  to  be  forced  upon  the 
country,  will  deprive  us  in  a  great  degree  of 
tte  advantages  which  have  resulted  from  the 
struggle. 

Let  us  look  over  the  field  and  strive  to  arrive 
at  our  conclusions  as  sensible  men,  reasoning 
from  fixed  standpoints.  What  is  the  case  pre- 


sented  to  our  observation  ?  We  find  in  eleven 
States  there  ia  practically  no  government.  We 
find  that  those  States  have  passed  through  the 
terrific  trials  of  a  civil  war  initiated  by  their 
people.  This  war  has  destroyed  what  were 
their  existing  political  institutions  and  changed 
their  relations  to  the  Union.  It  has  left  them  in 
a  condition  in  which  it  becomes  the  duty  of  the 
Executive  and  Congress,  acting  under  the  plain 
provisions  of  the  Constitution,  to  guarantee  to 
their  people  Republican  forms  of  Government ; 
in  other  words,  in  a  condition  which  demands 
that  they  shall  be  brought  back  to  the  relation- 
ships that  were  severed  by  the  war.  No  matter 
how  you  may  talk  about  one  side  issue  and  an- 
other, this  is  the  real  and  vital  matter  upon 
which  the  Nation  is  now  called  to  pass. 

Now  coming  down  to  the  practical  question 
we  find  that  there  are  two  great  and  opposing 
principles  antagonistic  to  each  other  upon  which 
parties  must  divide.  One  or  the  other  must 
triumph,  and  as  a  necessary  consequence,  one  or 
the  other  must  surrender  its  views,  or  be  de- 
feated in  the  effort  to  maintain  them.  It  is  im- 
portant, therefore,  that  we  loo"k  over  the  subject 
very  carefully,  and  decide  deliberately  which  is 
right  and  which  wrong.  What  is  sought  to  be 
obtained  is  this  :  One  party  aims  to  put  the 
Government  of  these  States  into  the  hands  of 
loyal  men ;  of  men  who  were  faithful  daricg  the 
war ;  of  men  who  can  be  trusted  now  to  carry 
oat  the  great  principles  of  the  Constitution. 
The  other  course  will  have  the  effect  if  it  shall  be 
established,  to  put  this  great  Government  into 
the  hands  of  traitors ;  of  men  who  con- 
spired to  its  overthrow;  of  men  who  are 
even  now  unreconciled  to  it.  Disguise  the 
disagreeable  fact  as  we  may,  this  is  the  policy 
toward  which  we  are  tending,  if  the  views  of 
the  Democracy  are  adopted.  This  policy  that  is 
attempted  to  be  adopted  here — the  policy  that  has 
the  sympathy  of  a  very  large  class  of  persons  at 
the  North — that  would  bring  the  Rebels  back  into 
power — is  that  of  pretended  conciliation — of  the 
immediate  admission  of  the  rebel  representatives 
to  Congress.  That  policy  says  to  Congress,  Yoa 
should  no  longer  close  your  doors  against  these 
men  who  are  knocking  at  them  and  seeking  ad- 
mission. It  assumes  that  the  States  which,  have 
been  engaged  in  revolt  are  not  only  in  the  Union, 
bat  are  in  all  their  full,  practical  relations  to  the 
Government,  as  if  the  Rebellion  had  never  ex- 
isted, and  are,  therefore,  competent  to  exercise 


every  right  that  the  loyal  States  are  qualified  to 
enjoy,  prescribing  only  one  condition.  That 
ondition  is,  present  ostensible  loyalty.  And 
this  loyalty  is  demanded,  not  of  the  people  of  the 
State,  but  of  the  individual. 

If  the  representative  himself  is  loyal,  we  must 
recognize  him,  and  Congress  must  admit  him  to 
a  sear,  and  to  the  exercise  of  his  powers  as  a 
member,  without  reference  to  anything  else — 
without  proceeding  to  inquire  what  is  the  char- 
acter of  the  constituency  he  claims  the  right  to 
represent.  This  is  one  plan.  The  other  policy 
which  is  being  urged,  is  an  adoption  of  that 
wise,  just  and  discriminating  course  which  Con- 
gress, in  the  legitimate  discharge. of  its  duties, 
has  marked  oat. 

This  policy  requires  that  the  condition  of  the 
communities  which  are  made  up  of  the  people 
or  inhabitants  of  the  State  shall  first  be  inquired 
into  that  Congress  shall  determine  whether  such 
State  or  community  is  entitled  to  representation ! 
and  that  until  that  determination  is  arrived  at, 
no  individual  senator  or  representative  shall  be 
admitted  into  either  House. 

This  is  the  issue.  There  is  no  middle 
ground.  One  of  these  roads  we  must  take  and 
follow  to  its  legitimate  termination. 

We  are  in  danger  ef  being  deceived  by  the 
apparent  fairness  of  the  argument,  that  if  a 
loyal  representative  comes  from  a  disloyal  State, 
he  should  not  himself  be  deprived  of  rights  be- 
cause of  the  character  of  the  community  behind 
him.  These  gentlemen  will  say,  there  is  noble 
Horace  Majnard  of  Tennessee,  and  his  colleague 
Colonel  Stokes  and  brave  General  Johnson,  who 
have  been  loyal  all  through  the  war ;  why  should 
you  deprive  them  of  the  rights  of  citizenship? 

I  say  there  is  an  apparent  fairness  in  this 
argument.  Unless  the  people  scrutinize  it 
closely,  there  is  danger  that  it  may  lead  them  to 
the  adoption  of  views  that  are  not  warranted 
by  the  fapts.  And  if  they  do  adopt  it,  no  one 
can  predict  the  evil  consequences  that  will  re- 
sult to  the  nation.  If  you  establish  this  theory 
of  opening  the  door  to  loyal  men  from  disloyal 
States,  you  pave  the  way  for  a  restoration  of 
power  to  the  rebels.  Is  it  asked  why?  The 
first  reason  is  this:  So  long  as  a  district  is 
rebel  in  feeling,  you  cannot  expect  anything  else 
in  the  character  of  those  whom  it  shall  select 
to  embody  its  views.  Take  the  Third  district  of 
Louisiana  for  instance.  How  are  you  to  get 
loyal  representatives  from  a  section  whose 


people  are  so  intensely  and  virulently  treason- 
able ?  They  might,  under  the  pressure  of  fed- 
eral bayonets,  and  with  the  accessories  of  mar- 
tial law,  by  chance  or  even  by  design  send  a 
loyal  man.  But  federal  bayonets  are  not  to 
remain  there ;  martial  law  is  not  to  be  contin- 
ued. Abandon  these  safeguards,  and  what 
guarantee  can  you  have,  that  the  very  next 
year  you  will  not  find  the  loyal  man  removed, 
and  another  man  substituted,  who  will  more 
trnly  represent  the  sentiments  of  those  who 
elected  him  ?  Persons  who  are  elected  to  office 
must  always  represent  controlling  popular  sen- 
timents. As  well  might  you  suppose  that  you 
could  send  a  rebel,  whose  hands  are  stained 
with  the  blood  of  Union  soldiers,  frojn  some 
loyal  district  of  the  North,  as  to  expect  that 
those  subdued  but  unconverted  Rebels  in  the 
South  would  send  loyal  men  to  represent  them, 
any  longes  than  they  were  absolutely  compelled 
so  to  do. 

WHAT   IS   LOYALTY. 

Again ;  you  are  met  with  another  difficulty 
the  moment  you  attempt  to  adopt  this  rule, 
•  which  has  been  so  strongly  urged ;  the  ques- 
tion at  once  arises,  if  loyalty  in  a  representative 
is  to  be  the  only  test,  what  is  loyalty  1  What 
standard  is  to  be  the  one  that  in  this  regard  shall 
determine  recognition  or  exclusion  1  No  matter 
what  standard  you  may  fix  to-day,  what  it  shall 
be  in  future  will  depend,  under  such  a  plan, 
upon  what  the  men  are  who  are  then  in  Con- 
gress. I  do  not  know  a  man  in  the  North,  who 
does  not  claim  to  be  loyal — not  only  loyal  now, 
but  loyal  at  all  times.  I  do  not  know  a  party  in 
the  North,  which,  whatever  the  position  it 
assumed  towards  the  Government,  does  not 
claim  to  have  been  loyal  during  the  war.  How 
then,  are  you  to  determine  your  basis  t  The 
effect  is  going  to  be  this — if  yon  pursue  the  plan 
thus  marked  out :  every  one  will  be  deemed  loyal 
who  can  take  the  constitutional  oath.  There  is 
probably  no  better  evidence  of  the  inevitable 
tendency  of  such  a  view,  than  that  which  is 
given  by  the  President.  He  says  that  a  man  is 
to  be  presumed  loyal  when  he  will  take  the  oath 
to  support  the  Constitution.  He  does  not  eveii 
say  anything  about  test  oaths,  but  leaves  it  to  be 
inferred  that  he  would  favor  their  amendment. 
I  deny  that  a  man  ia  loyal  because  he  can  take 
the  oath.  If  you  adopt  that  rule  alone  of  admit- 
ting the  individual  member  before  his  State  shall 
be  declared  entitled  to  representation,  you  will 


fill  your  halls  of  Congress  with  the  worst  class 
of  rebels  in  the  South,  What  do  the  large  class 
of  Southern  men  who  begun  the  rebellion,  and 
who  have  been  engaged  in  its  prosecution,  care 
about  an  obligation  to  support  the  Constitution  f 
What  did  they  care  about  it  a  few  years  ago  t 
They  had  sworn  to  maintain  the  Constitution  of 
the  Union  then ;  but  when  the  test  came,  they  said 
that  the  duties  they  owed  to  their  States  were 
superior  to  those  they  owed  their  country.  Where 
is  the  evidence,  if  any  can  be  produced,  that 
this  feeling  has  changed  ? 

And  I  will  go  further.  I  do  not  know  that 
even  the  stringent  test  oath,  if  it  should  be 
maintained,  would  be  of  any  use.  I  sometimes 
think  the  President  is  right,  and  that  the  test 
oath  will  be  taken  only  by  the  worst  classes  of 
men — because  nearly  all  have  been  in  rebellion, 
and  honorable,  high-minded  men  will  not  swear 
that  they  have  not  Are  you,  then,  to  get  good 
representatives  solely  through  this  obligation, 
or  any  other  applied  to  the  individual  ?  Look 
at  Garret  Davis,  of  Kentucky.  He  can  take  any 
oath  that  has  been  prescribed,  and  makes  no 
refusal  to  do  so — yet  he  is  a  great  deal  worse 
and  more  dangerous  than  Alexander  H.  Ste- 
phens— far  less  liberal,  and  less  in  sympathy 
with  the  objects  of  the  Government.  Here  is 
a  man  a  great  deal  worse  than  many  who  were 
among  the  leaders  of  the  rebellion,  who  can 
take  the  obligation.  The  oath  is  of  no  avail, 
and  the  country  is  virtually  left  without  protec- 
tion, if  you  break  down  the  barriers  which  con- 
gress proposes  to  establish. 

There  is  another  reason  why  this  policy  will 
not  answer.  From  one  district  in  a  state, 
you  will  have  a  representative  man  whom  you 
consider  to  be  loyal,  and  to  whom  you  therefore 
concede  a  right  of  admission.  From  the  next 
district  on  each  side,  yon  will  refuse  to  admit 
members  because  they  are  not  loyal.  Thus  you 
propose  to  create  &  divided  character,  a  State 
which  is  one-half  in  the  Union  and  one-half  out 
of  it.  So  the  Senate  will  admit  one  class  of  men, 
while  another  class  will  be  recognized,  and  an- 
other state  of  qualifications  will  be  demanded  in 
the  House.  There  would  be  no  defined  principle 
of  government,  but  a  series  of  conflicting  ideas 
struggling  to  be  incorporated  upon  it,  and  tend- 
ing inevitably  to  anarchy.  The  evil  would  be 
less  if  you  were  to  admit  all  at  once,  than  if  yon 
attempt  this  unsatisfactory,  half  way  sort  of  leg- 
islation. 


6 


DANGER  IN  THE  "  CONCILIATION  "  DOCTEINE. 

There  is  another  danger.  It  has  been  argued 
by  the  senator  from  the  Twentieth  that  you 
should  admit  these  men  back  to  Congress,  be- 
cause yon  should  be  forgiving,  because  you 
should  be  charitable,  because  you  should  adopt 
and  exhibit  a  spirit  of  Christian  magnanimity. 
Permit  me  to  say  that  I  am  actuated  by  no  vin- 
dictive spirit.  I  do  not  desire  to  see  any  ex- 
traordinary course  of  revenge  pursued  towards 
the  rebels.  I  do  not  wish  their  lives  might  be 
taken,  except  in  a  few  cases.  I  do  not  wish 
to  see  their  property  confiscated.  But  I  hold 
that  it  is  far  from  public  duty,  far  from  enlight- 
ened charity,  far  from  that  broad  spirit  of  Chris- 
tianity which  embraces  all  things  in  its  scope, 
that  we  should  admit  these  red-handed  rebels 
back  to  all  their  privileges  because  they 
have  been  beaten  and  are  subdued  before 
us.  I  believe,  sir,  it  is  a  right  and  wise 
maxim  in  politics,  that  we  should  be  just 
before  we  are  generous.  I  believe  that  it 
is  oftentimes  true  that  mercy  to  the  individual 
is  cruelty  to  the  State.  If  the  matter  ended 
with  the  individual,  I  could  perhaps  go  as  far 
as  the  gentleman  in  his  plea  for  mercy  and  for- 
bearance has  gone.  But  I  cannot  disguise  from 
myself  the  palpable  fact  that  it  reaches  beyond 
the  individual  to  the  State.  You  might,  with  as 
much  justice  and  propriety  argue  that  rob- 
bers and  murderers  should  be  forgiven  ;  that 
you  should  open  the  doors  and  let  them  out  into 
the  light  of  day,  because  they  have  been  van- 
quished; because  the  instruments  with  which 
they  attempted  their  crimes  have  been  taken 
from  them.  Tou  do  not  say  so  even  if  they  re- 
pent. You  do  say  that  there  is  a  duty  to  the 
State  which  is  higher  and  broader  than  the  claim 
of  mercy  to  individuals,  and  therefore  yon  keep 
them  in  prison  still.  Just  so  in  this  instance. 
A  great  crime  has  been  committed.  Its  perpe- 
trators have  been  tried  and  convicted.  No  par- 
don has  been  issued  to  them.  It  is  not  even  in 
evidence  that  they  have  repented. 

And  now  it  is  asked,  not  only  that  they  shall 
be  relieved  from  their  disabilities,  but  also  that 
you  shall  surrender  the  destinies  of  this  great 
nation  into  their  hands !  I  repeat  that  this  sen- 
timent is  anything  but  Christian.  It  is  anything 
but  right. 

We  owe  this  duty  to  the  nation,  to  humanity, 
to  the  future, — that  some  sort  of  punishment 
shall  ba  inflicted  ;  that  the  rebels  shall  not  es- 


cape the  consequences  of  their  flagrant  treason  ; 
that  they  shall  be  put  under  ban,  as  the 
proper  and  legitimate  consequence  of  their  own 
infamous  act*. 

I  have  spoken  of  the  plan  of  Congress,  which 
is  to  allow  the  States  to  come  back  as  States.  I 
have  endeavored  to  show  what  would  be  the  con- 
sequences of  giving  them  readmission  by  dis- 
tricts. Let  me  ask  the  indulgence  of  the  Senate 
while  we  review  the 

POSITION  OF  CONGRESS. 

The  right  of  Congress  to  provide  conditions 
and  guarantees  for  the  rebel  States  before  their 
relations  to  the  Government  shall  again  be  re- 
sumed, depends,  of  course,  upon  the  actual  con- 
dition of  these  States  and  th  e  relation  they  bear 
to  the  General  Government. 

That  a  State  has  no  right,  under  the  Constitu- 
tion, to  secede  from  the  Union  and*  break  or 
destroy  its  relations  to  the  Federal  Government, 
is  a  proposition  which  no  sane  man  in  the  North 
will  now  attempt  to  deny.  .  The  compact  made 
when  she  sought  and  had  granted  to  her  the  ad- 
vantages of  the  Union,  could  only  be  rightfully 
dissolved  by  the  consent  of  both  contracting 
parties. 

But  that  a  State  may  wrongfully  but  actually 
break  that  compact  and  impair  or  destroy  those 
relations  to  the  General  Government,  so  far  as 
the  people  of  the  State  itself  is  concerned,  is  a- 
proposition  which  the  dullest  intellect  must 
concede.  It  matters  not  that  it  be  not  done 
rightfully,  so  long  as  the  fact  remains  that  it  is 
done. 

No  State  can  rightfully  or  under  the  Constitu- 
tion enter  into  any  "  alliance  or  confederation," 
yet  eleven  states  actually  did  enter  into  "  an 
alliance  and  confederation." 

The  Constitution  denies  a  state  the  right  to 
grant  letters  of  reprisal  to  coin  money,  to  emit 
bills  of  credit,  to  lay  duties,  to  keep  troops  or 
make  war,  yet  the  rebel  states  did  coin  money 
grant  letters  of  reprisal,  emit  bills  of  credit, 
keep  troops  and  make  war.  It  is  a  great  mis- 
take to  suppose  that  because  an  act  is  an  illegal 
act  it  is  no  act ;  it  is  illegal  to  commit  murder, 
yet  when  shot  or  stabbed  to  the  heart  by  the 
highwayman,  the  individual  is  no  less  dead  than 
when  executed  by  the  sentence  of  the  law.  So- 
here,  though  the  act  is  illegal,  and  does  not  bind, 
the  government,  yet  it  is  no  less  an  act  accom. 
plished  on  the  part  of  the  state,  and  the  people 


of  the  State  are  subject  to  all  the  consequences 
prescribed  by  international  law  and  the  conse- 
quences that  would  have  resulted  had  the  rela- 
tion been  in  law  severed. 

In  other  words,  the  general  government  is  not 
bound  by  what  the  State  unlawfully  did,  pro- 
viding it  has  the  power  to  compel  obedience 
to  the  compact,  but  in  exacting  or  compelling 
such  obedience,  it  may  do  so  without  regard  to 
the  rights  or  guarantees  to  which  the  State  was 
entitled,  but  which  it  willfully  and  wickedly 
forfeited  and  set  at  nought. 

This  will  be  more  apparent  when  we  see  pre- 
cisely what  it  is  that  makes  the  State  (under  our 
constitution).  The  making  of  a  State  is  nothing 
more  than  a  great  and  sacred  contract  between 
the  general  government  and  a  certain  number 
of  people  outside  its  boundaries,  living  and  in- 
habiting a  certain  area  of  territory.  These  peo- 
ple come  to  the  government  and  say  that  they 
want  the  benefits  and  franchises  of  a  State. 
The  government,  through  its  agents,  agree  that 
they  will  grant  these  benefits  and  franchises 
upon  the  condition  that  those  people  will  do 
certain  acts  and  make  certain  stipulations  on 
their  part,  required  and  enjoined  by  the  consti- 
tution. 

The  government  will  agree  that  each  state 
shall  have  a  certain  number  of  senators  and  rep- 
resentatives in  Congress;  that  they  shall  vote 
for  President  and  Vice  President ;  that  they 
shall  have  a  state  government  republican  in 
form  ;  shall  be  defended  in  their  persons  and 
property  ;  shall  have  post-offices  and  mails,  and 
other  advantages  and  guarantees,  upon  the 
condition,  however,  that  the  people  seeking  ad- 
mission as  a  state  shall  acknowledge  supreme 
allegiance  to  the  laws  and  constitution  of  the 
United  States ;  that  their  officers  shall  take  an 
oath  to  support  the  constitution ;  that  the  citi- 
zens of  each  state  shall  be  entitled  to  all  the  im- 
munities of  citizens  in  the  several  states ;  that 
they  shall  commit  no  treason,  levy  no  war, 
make  no  treaty,  nor  do  any  act  forbidden  by 
the  constitution  of  the  United  States. 

To  this  the  people  assent.  Congress  ratifies 
the  compact,  and  the  people  and  this  territory 
becomes  a  State.  Now  to  hold  that  this  com- 
pact cannot  be  broken ;  that  this  new  relation 
which  the  people  of  this  territory  bear  to  the 
government  cannot  be  suspended  or  impaired, 
Is,  in  my  judgment,  contrary  to  reason  and  law. 
Either  party  may  break  this  relation  so  far  as 


the  offending  party  is  concerned,  and  it  could 
only  be  resumed  upon  such  terms  as  the  party 
offended  against  should  prescribe. 

Suppose  that  after  this  State  is  admitted,  the 
other  States  composing  the  government  should 
destroy  the  Constitution,  overthrow  the  govern- 
ment by  violence,  and  establish  a  monarchy, 
would  any  one  pretend  that  the  new  State  would 
not  be  absolved  from  the  compact  1 

Mr.  H.  C.  MURPHY  — I  would  like  to  ask  the 
gentleman  whether  he  regards  the  Southern 
States  as  States  of  the  Union  ? 

Mr.  LOW  —  I  will  answer  that  directly  in  the 
ine  of  my  argument. 

The  State  which  throws  off  its  allegiance  and 
makes  war  upon  the  Government,  destroys  its  re- 
lations to  it ;  but  when  beaten  back  we  are  told 
that  no  penalty  can  be  exacted  because  it  is  a 
State  under  the  Constitution.  Take  the  individ- 
ual citizen  of  the  State,  he  is  entitled  to  his  liberty 
and  b  is  life  so  long  as  he  keeps  the  compact  which 
every  man  is  under  to  be  a  law-abiding  citizen  ; 
but  let  him  shoot  or  rob  his  neighbor,  and  the 
State  forfeits  his  life  or  liberty,  but  that  forfeits 
none  of  the  claims  or  obligations  which  the 
State  has  upon  him,  and  if  restored  to  his  orig- 
inal status,  the  State  prescribes  the  conditions 
upon  which  he  lives. 

Here  the  State  commits  the  crime  and  breaks 
the  compact ;  the  laws  of  nations  fix  the  penalty 
and  define  the  forfeit. 

But  when,  it  will  be  asked,  does  the  State  lose 
or  forfeit  these  rights  so  secured  ?  And  I  have 
heard  the  question  asked  if  the  city  of  New 
York  lost  hers  when  the  mob  set  the  authorities 
at  defiance  ?  Or  did  Massachusetts  or  Pennsyl- 
vania lose  theirs  at  the  time  of  Shay's  or  the- 
Whiskey  rebellion  T  The  answer  to  this  is  upon 
the  lips  of  every  lawyer  who  has  become  fami- 
liar with  the  laws  of  nations.  Not  certainly 
for  light  or  transient  causes.  A  mob  or  riot  or 
transient  insurrection  furnishes  no  grounds  for 
the  forfeiture  of  the  franchises  of  a  State.  But 
where  the  State  or  a  number  of  the  States 
acting  in  their  capacity  of  States,  through  their 
Legislatures  o.-  conventions,  deliberately  throw 
off  and  renounce  all  allegiance  to  the  general 
government,  break  the  compact  and  levy  war 
and  maintain  their  hostile  attitude  for  any  con- 
siderable period  of  time  with  nearly  balanced 
power,  they  then  become  belligerents,  and  the 
contest  a  civil  war. 

Now  what  do  the  laws  of  nations  say  upon 
this  subject  T  As  I  wish  to  assert  nothing  in  this 


regard  but  what  is  fortified  by  the  most  convinc- 
ing proofs,  says  Bello : 

"  When  a  faction  is  formed  in  a  State,  which 
takes  up  arms  against  the  sovereign,  in  order  to 
wrest  from  him  the  supreme  power,  or  impose 
conditions  on  him ;  or  when  a  republic  is  divid- 
ed into  two  parties  which  mutually  treat  each 
other  as  enemies,  this  war  is  called  a  civil  war, 
which  means  war  between  fellow-citizens.  Civil 
wars  frequently  commence  by  popular  tumults 
which  in  nowise  concern  foreign  nations ;  but 
when  one  faction  or  party  obtains  dominion 
over  an  extensive  territory,  gives  laws  to  it, 
establishes  a  government  in  it,  administers  jus- 
tice, and  in  a  word,  exercises  acts  of  sovereignty, 
it  is  a  person  in  the  law  of  nations ;  and  the 
foreign  powers  which  desire  to  maintain  their 
neutrality  ought  to  consider  both  as  two  States, 
independent  as  respects  one  another  and  other 
States,  and  who  recognize  no  judge  of  their 
differences." 

Says  another  great  writer : 

"  When  a  part  of  the  State  takes  up  arms 
against  the  Government,  if  it  is  sufficiently  strong 
to  resist  its  action,  and  to  constitute  two  parties 
of  equally  balanced  forces,  the  existence  of  civil 
war  is  thenceforward  determined.  If  the  con- 
spirators against  the  government  have  not  the 
means  of  assuming  this  position,  their  movement 
does  not  pass  beyond  a  rebellion.  As  true  civil 
war  breaks  the  bonds  of  society,  by  dividing  it 
in  fact  into  two  independent  societies,  it  is  for 
this  consideration  that  we  treat  of  it  in  interna- 
tional law,  since  each  party  forming  as  it  were  a 
separate  nation,  both  should  be  regarded  as  sub- 
ject to  the  laws  of  war.  This  subjection  to  the 
law  of  nations  is  the  more  necessary  in  civil 
wars,  since  these,  by  nourishing  more  hatred 
and  resentments  than  foreign  wars,  require  more 
the  corrective  of  the  law  of  nations  in  order  to 
moderate  their  ravages." 

Hear  what  Vattel  says  upon  the  effect  of  a 
•civil  war : 

"A  civil  war  breaks  the  bands  of  society  and 
government,  or  at  least  suspends  their  force  and 
effect ;  it  produces  in  the  nation  two  indepen- 
dent parties,  who  consider  each  other  as  ene- 
mies, and  acknowledge  no  common  judge 
These  two  parties,  therefore,  must  necessarily 
be  considered  as  constituting,  at  least  for  a  time, 
two  distinct  societies." 

Says  Grotius : 

"That  a  civil  war  between  members  of  the 
same  society  is  a  mixed  war,  public  on  the  side 


of  the  Government,  but  private  on  the  part  of 
the  people  resisting  authority ;  yet  such  a  war 
entitles  both  belligerent  parties  to  full  belliger- 
ent rights." 

Now,  what  has  been  the  nature  of  the  strug- 
gle which  we  have  carried  on  for  the  last  five 
years?  It  has  been  no  mere  insurrection , no 
riot.  It  has  been  a  most  tremendous,  bloody 
and  terrible  civil  war,  deliberately  organized 
and  commenced  by  States  acting  in  their  capa- 
city of  States — as  States  they  formerly  repudi 
ated  the  compact  and  seceded  from  the  Union, 
so  far  as  was  in  their  power.  Banded  together 
into  a  hostile  confederacy,  seized  the  United 
States  fortifications,  navy  yards,  and  other 
property  within  their  limits,  formed  a  govern- 
ment, elected  a  president  and  congress,  made 
and  executed  laws,  sent  their  ministers  to 
foreign  governments,  coined-  money,  levied 
taxes,  seized  and  confiscated  property  of  citizens 
of  the  United  States  government,  raised  mighty 
armies,  seized  and  held  an  immense  territory  and 
for  five  long  years  defended  their  territory  and 
maintained  and  carried  on  a  war  against  the 
government  on  a  scale  without  a  parallel  in  the 
history  of  nations,  a  war  which  sent  one  million 
of  men  to  their  graves,  which  cost  or  destroyed 
more  than  one-third  of  the  whole  property  of 
the  country,  which  was  so  monstrous  in  its  hor- 
rors, so  inhuman  in  its  barbarities  as  to  shock 
and  appal  the  civilization  of  the  world. 

If  ever  a  conflict  within  a  nation  approached 
the  magnitude  and  importance  of  a  civil  war, 
surely  this  was  one. 

All  the  civilized  nations  regarded  and  treated 
it  as  such.  Our  own  government,  President  and 
Congress  uniformly  acted  upon  the  same  theory, 
and  the  Supreme  Court,  in  the  celebrated  "prize 
cases,"  expressly  so  decided,  and  then  declared 
that  all  within  the  hostile  territory  "  are  public 
enemies,  and  liable  to  be  treated  as  such,  and 
that  the  United  States  may  exercise  full  bellige- 
rent rights,  and  that  to  the  antagonistic  parties 
all  the  legal  liabilities  and  consequences  of  war 
attach." 

Mr.  H.  C.  MURPHY  —  Will  the  Senator  allow 
me  to  ask  him  one  other  question :  how  could 
those  States,  being  out  of  the  Union,  give  any 
force  and  validity  to  what  is  called  The  Great 
Amendment  to  the  Constitution  ? 

Mr.  LOW  —  I  do  not  know  that  they  could. 

Mr.  MURPHY— You  do  not  think  that  they 
could  1 

Mr.  LOW  —  I  do  not  know  that  they  could. 
I  am  not  to  decide,  or  even  to  pass  an  opin- 


ion  upon  the  question.     It  is  not  within  the 
limit  of  my  present  argument. 

Now  what  were  the  "  legal  consequences  and 
liabilities  "  that  attached  to  the  defeated  party 
when  their  armies  were  overthrown  ?  Here 
again  comes  in  the  law  of  nations,  and  defines 
with  clearness  and  accuracy  precisely  what  they 
were.  Not  only  were  their  rights  under  the 
constitution  and  their  political  relations  to  the 
government  lost  and  destroyed,  but  the  traitors 
had  become  public  enemies,  and  their  property 
and  lives  were  forfeited  to  the  government,  and 
that  government  could  impose  just  such  condi 
upon  them  as  in  its  discretion  should  seem 


and     constitutions,    their    State  officials  —  old 
and   new — disregarded    all  rules    which    they 


had 
laws 


adopted    and    all    rights 
and    constitutions     had 


which    former 
secured     and 


best. 

"  But  you  don't  believe  in  State  suicide"  — 
"that  a  State  can  secede  from  the  Union. 
"Hav'nt  we  been  fighting  five  years  to  keep 
them  in  1"  I  hear  asked  with  an  air  of  triumph 
by  an  impatient  listener  at  my  side.  No,  in  one 
sense  I  don't  believe  that  a  State  can  go  out  01 
the  Union  or  commit  "suicide."  Her  territory 
is  still  there  within  the  ancient  bounds  of  the 
Union,  and  within  our  military  lines  —  her  in- 
habitants are  there  and  their  property  or  what 
is  left  of  it,  is  also  there  ;  but  I  do  say,  and  the 
law  of  nations  does  declare,  that  the  political  re- 
lations which  the  people  of  this  state  did  bear  to 
the  Union  and  government  are  lost  and  destroy- 
ed, on  the  part  of  the  State,  and  can  only  be 
revived  by  a  new  compact  with  that  govern- 
ment, upon  conditions  then  made. 


THE      DKXOCBATS    AND    PBB8IDBXT    JOHN805    DIS- 
AGREE. 

I  know  that  our  Democratic  friends  insist, 
that     the    moment    the     military    power     of 


the     Confederates 
action   of  the  rebel 
their  former   rights 


was  broken,  and  the 
government  arrested,  all 
were  revived  and  their 


former  relations  restored  by  their  own  volition, 
without  any  action  or  consent  on  the  part  of  the 
Government.  Now  if  this  be  true,  the  President 
has  been  guilty  of  the  grossest  usurpations. 
He  never  in  practice  carried  out  the  theory  at 
all,  but  on  the  contrary,  acted  upon  the  prin- 
ciples which  are  declared  by  the  laws  of  nations 
and  governed  the  subjugated  foe  as  tbe  con- 
queror dom  the  conquered. 

Upon  that  theory,   he   should    have   imme- 


given.  Then  by  his  individual  will  h,e  arrested 
their  governors,  threw  them  into  prison,  and 
sent  governors  of  his  own  to  rule  them  ;  he  set 
aside  their  statutes  and  governed  them  by  mili- 
tary decrees ;  he  arrested  their  citizens,  set  aside 
their  elections,  suppressed  their  officers,  dis- 
franchised their  voters,  shut  up  their  newspaper 
offices,  ordered  them  to  abolish  slavery,  repudi- 
ate their  debt,  make  new  statutes  as  to  evidencei 
and  in  fact  exercised  powers  more  despotic  than 
any  emperor  or  monarch. 

All  branches  of  the  Government  have  agreed 
in  this  regard,  that  some  power  must  exercise 
these  extraordinary  prerogatives,  but  here  comes 
the  question  of  difference,  shall  this  question  of 
reconstruction  be  settled  by  the  President  or  by 
Congress?  The  Democracy  say  the  President 
shall  determine  this. 

Mr.  H.  C.  MURPHY— The  Democracy  do  not 
hold  any  such  doctrine.  The  Democracy  do 
say,  that  the  rebellion  being  closed,  the  States  are 
ipso  facto  in  the  Union,  and  cannot  be  excluded  ; 
and  that  they  are  entitled  to  all  their  rights 
and  privileges  as  States.  That  is  to  be  decided 
neither  by  the  President  nor  Congress.  It  is  in 
the  Constitution,  and  is  therefore  the  fundamen- 
tal law  of  the  land. 

Mr.  LOW — The  position  of  the  Democracy  is 
very  unfortunate  for  them,  because  it  conflicts 
with  the  law  of  nations. 
It  is  strange  to  me  to  hear  gentlemen  abusing 
ongress    for    usurping  powers,  when   all  the 
usurpations,  if  any  have  occurred,  have  been 
upon  the  other  side. 

What  do  you  find  in  the  Constitution  in- 
rusted  to  Congress — this  great  body  of  men, 
who  represent  the  people,  whom  they  approach 
more  nearly  than  do  any  other  branches  of  the 
Government?  What  do  you  find  as  to  their 
powers  ?  Almost  one-third  of  the  Constitution 
taken  up  with  definitions  of  the  rights  and 
duties  of  Congress.  They  shall  make  wan 
grant  letters  of  marque,  establish  reprisals,  fix 
tariffs,  levy  taxes,  and  so  on  with  a  great  variety 
of  duties,  among  which  is  one,  that  they  should 
guarantee  to  every  state  a  republican  form  of 
government.  A  bill  which  makes  any  appropri- 


diately  recognized  the  State  governments, 
constitutions  and  laws  as  they  existed !  ation  of  money,  must  originate  in  Congress, 
before  the  war.  He  did  nothing  of  the  kind  Not  only  is  this  true,  but  so  jealous  were  our 
but  on  the  contrary,  he  set  aside  their  law,  forefathers  of  prerogative*,  that  they  ordained 


10 


that  such  bills  should  originate  in  the  lower  1 
House,  that  being  the  most  numerous  body  and 
the  one  most  nearly  approaching  the  people. 
The  Supreme  Court  decided,  years  ago,  in  the 
case  of  Luther  v.  Burden,  that  it  is  for  Congress 
to  decide  upon  what  the  particular  form  of  a 
State  government  may  be.  And  yet  gentlemen  im- 
pugn Congress  because  it  assumes  to  have  some- 
thing to  say,  as  if  it  were  a  body  of  usurpers 
engaged  in  the  attempt  to  force  a  despotism  upon 
the  country. 

The  power  of  the  President  is  circumscribed, 
and  his  duties  are  clearly  defined.  Except  as 
Commander-in-chief,  he  could  do  no  act  without 
authority  of  Congress.  In  Congress  is  all  the 
power  vested  that  pertains  to  the  legislation  of 
the  country. 

Yet  the  President  has  assumed  to  save  Con- 
gress all  trouble  on  this  subject.  He  has  made 
new  State  governments,  without  regard  to  former 
laws  or  constitution  ;  and  asks  Congress  to  take 
them  without  inquiry  or  investigation,  for  "bet- 
ter or  for  worse." 

HOW  THB  DETBBMTWATIOX  OF   THIS  QUESTION   IS  TO 
AFFECT  THE  C00NTKT. 

When  you  examine  it  you  will  find  that  this 
question  comes  down  to  every  hearthstone  in 
the  land.  It  is  not  merely  a  question  whether 
Horace  Maynard  or  Colonel  Stokes  shall  be  ad- 
mitted to  Congress,  but  whether  these  rebel  com- 
munities shall  immediately  send  their  rebel  rep- 
resentatives to  Congress,  and  shape  and  deter- 
mine our  future  policy.  Upon  the  solution  of 
this  problem  the  whole  future  of  the  govern- 
ment depends. 

Let  us  for  a  moment  examine  the  present  posi- 
tion of  affairs.  What  is  the  condition  of  the  coun- 
try? All  has  been  changed  in  a  few  years. 
War  has  upturned  the  foundations.  At  the  South, 
the  old  aristocracy  is  for  the  most  part  broken 
or  humiliated  by  the  result  of  the  strife — those 
who  did  not  die  in  it ;  a  new  system  of  industry 
is  about  to  be  inaugurated ;  the  slaves  have  been 
liberated ;  a  new  direction  of  public  policy  is 
to  be  taken.  It  is  true  that  war  has  left  these 
States  impoverished  and  weak,  and  it  is 
equally  trua  that  they  musi  be  strengthened  to 
build  up  again.  Our  own  Northern  part  of  the 
country  must  also  be  changed.  We  are 
laboring  under  an  immense  debt — a  debt  of 
three  thousand  millions — incurred  in  prosecut- 
i  ng  the  war  and  saving  the  Union.  We  have  on 


every  hand  widows  and  orphans  whose  hus- 
bands and  parents  died  in  battle,  and  we  are 
under  a  solemn  obligation  to  protect  them  from 
want.  The  maimed  and  crippled  soldiers  from 
our  armies  are  also  to  be  cared  for. 

In  view  of  these  facts  and  these  duties,  what 
will  be  the  immediate  effects  of  an  adoption  of 
the  policy  of  receiving  rebels  back  on  their 
oath,  and  without  inquiring  into  the  condition 
of  their  constituencies  1 

Look  at  the  wrong  by  reason  of  their  increased 
representation,  let  us  examine  it  for  a  moment! 
The  representation  which  the  South  will  bring 
back  in  the  lower  house,  consists  of  sixty-two 
members.  It  will  also  be  entitled,  by  the  libera- 
tion of  the  slaves  to  thirteen  more ;  making  seven- 
ty-five in  all.  These  men  would  come  to  Washing- 
ton, most  of  them  imbued  with  the  temper  of 
unyielding  and  desperate  rebels.  This  is  what 
must  happen  under  the  policy  which  the  Sen- 
ator from  the  Third  pronounces  to  be  the  sound 
policy — the  Republican  principle.  That  prin- 
ciple will  admit  seventy-five  rebels  into  Con- 
giess. 

Now  turn  to  the  basis  of  representation  and 
you  will  find  that  the  'Northern  states  are  now 
entitled  to  156  in  the  lower  house,  of  this  num- 
ber they  will  Jose  13  which  the  South  will  gain 
by  the  liberation  of  the  slaves,  leaving  143. 

The  border  states  and  the  late  slave  states  will 
bring  back  98.  Suppose  these  to  vote  in  a  body, 
and  all  you  have  to  gain  from  the  northern 
states  is  21  members  who  sympathize  with  the 
south  and  yon  put  the  House  of  Representatives 
in  their  hands.  Yon  could  hardly  fail  in  any 
election  of  getting  a  larger  number.  Do  you 
want  such  a  result  ?  I  would  resist  it  by  every 
constitutional  means,  I  would  never  consent  to 
put  the  government  in  the  hands  of  these  red 
handed  rebels  who  for  five  years  have  sought  ita 
destruction. 

But  worse  than  that  is  the  manner  of 
electing  them.  Of  the  whole  number  of  rep- 
resentatives from  the  Southern  and  border 
States,  31,  or  nearly  one-half,  are  given  under 
the  amended  Constitution,  upon  a  basis  formed 
by  the  blacks.  What  is  the  fact,  under  the 
arguments  advanced?  You  will  admit  these 
States  back,  and  you  will  elect  the  31 
representatives  which  tie  blacks  entitle 
them  to,  bj  white  votes  1  There  are  several 
States  of  the  South  in  which  each  Rebel 
inhabitant  would  balance  by  his  vote  two  loyal 


11 


white  men  of  the  North.  This  is  what  is  sought; 
and  for  what  purpose  t  To  build  up  new  par- 
ties, new  hopes,  and  new  candidates  for  the 
Presidency.  Go  to  the  Senate  chamber,  and  in 
reference  to  this  particular  danger,  you  are  even 
worse  off  there.  You  have  twenty-two  Senators 
from  the  eleven  insurgent  States.  You  would 
have  now  seventy  Senators  in  all,  if  the  whole 
number  was  full.  A  majority  is  thirty-six 
You  admit  twenty-two  from  Rebel  States,  and 
they  have  only  to  get  possession  of  fourteen 
more,  to  take  control  of  the  body. 

These  twenty-two  men  would,  of  course,  rep- 
resent Rebel  sympathies  —  the  sentiment  of 
those  who  elected  them.  All  the  interests  of 
this  great  country  would  be  in  their  hands. 
We  would  be  as  badly  off  as  when  the  Rebellion 
began — yes,  and  a  great  deal  worse.  The  only 
mistake  the  Rebels  made  at  the  outset  of  the 
war  was  made  when  they  left  the  Senate.  They 
might  have  remained  there,  and  held  the  North 
bound  hand  and  foot. 

Gentlemen  will  argue  that  this  presentation  is 
not  fair ;  that  they  are  not  intending  to  re-estab- 
lish the  old  order  of  things ;  that  only  loyal  men 
will  be  admitted.  But  the  great  difficulty  will 
be,  that  when  you  once  open  the  door,  you  re- 
cognize the  sovereignty  of  the  States  and  sur- 
render the  oversight  .of  Congress,  and  you  will 
thenceforward  have  no  >  ight  to  interfere. 

Carry  this  same  principle  into  the  Electoral 
College  —  for  it  must  be  made  up  on  the  same 
basis  as  the  representation  in  Congress.  There 
you  will  find  that  they  hold  in  their  hands  the 
election  of  a  President,  and  of  course  they 
would  be  grateful  to  the  man  who  had  made 
them,  who  had  called  them  back  and  liberated 
them  from  the  consequences  of  their  own  high 
misdemeanors.  Then  yon  would  have 
the  whole  three  branches  of  your  Gov- 
ernment in  the  hands  of  such  men  —  these  men 
who  have  been  its  armed  enemies,  and  who 
are  ita  enemies  in  sentiment,  and  so  far  as  they 
dare  to  be,  in  action,  to-day  Were  this 
policy  adopted  I  should  fear  to-day,  that  if 
General  Lee  were  opposed  to  General  Grant 
in  a  run  for  the  Presidency,  he  would  be 
the  successful  candidate.  I  do  not  say  that 
such  would  be  the  result.  I  say,  that  the 
slate  of  feeling,  both  North  and  South,  would 
give  us  apprehensions  npon  the  subject.  Do 
we  want  to  run  such  risks  T  I  repeat,  that  if 
wo  had  no  remedy  but  revolution,  I  would 
submit,  however  reluctantly,  and  would  never 


advocate  a  policy  of  resistance.     But  our  reme- 
dy lies  in  the  Constitution. 

We  now  have  it  in  our  own  keeping  and  are 
asked  to  throw  it  away. 

THE   EFFECT   OF  THIS   POLICY   TJPOH  CSIOH    MEX  AT 
THE    SOUTH. 

What  will  be  the  effect  upon  the  Union  men 
of  the  South,  if  such  a  feeling  as  is  professed 
and  seriously  advocated  here  and  elsewhere  pre- 
vails ?  What  will  become  of  the  men  who  left 
their  own  country  and  sought  your  Northern 
armies,  to  fight  in  the  ranks  for  the  Union  ? 
the  men  who  were  hunted,  and  persecuted  and 
wronged  all  through  the  war  T  They  will  be 
obliged  to  take  "  back  seats,"  while  their 
enemies  and  the  enemies  of  the  country  bear 
away  all  the  honors.  I  tell  you,  Senators,  that 
it  is  not  the  Union  men  of  the  South  that  ask 
for  the  admission  of  representatives  from  these 
States.  It  is  the  rebel  who  displays  such  eager- 
ness to  be  recognized  as  part  of  the  government 
he  has  assailed.  Why,  I  am  appealed  to  by  gen- 
tlemen who  ask  me  if  I  want  to  keep  out  of  the 
national  fold  the  staunch  patriot,  Horace  May  - 
nard,  and  the  brave  Colonel  Stokes,  and  the 
sturdy  champion  of  loyalty,  Parson  Brownlow  T 
I  will  open  my  arms  to  them  with  rejoicing 
whenever  I  can  do  so  without  endangering  the 
country.  But,  1  repeat,  they  are  not  the  men 
who  ask  you  to  do  this  thing.  From  the  whole 
unbroken  South, 'the  voice  comes  up  in  thunder 
tones  from  the  Union  men,  that  you  must  not 
admit  those  rebel  representatives,  and  so  crush 
them.  They  point  to  Horace  Maynard.  Did  not 
Horace  May  iiard  say,  in  a  letter  from  him,  recent- 
ly written  and  published,  that  they  are  not  true 
friends  of  the  President  who  advise  this  course  T 
And  did  not  Col.  Stokes,  his  peer  and  colleague, 
urge  upon  Congress  to  take  time,  and  settle  the 
preliminaries  well,  before  giving  admission  to 
Southern  representatives  ;  and  declare  that  the 
radicals  in  congress  were  the  true  friends  of  the 
South? 

Read  the  following  from  Maynard's  letter  to 
the  Nashville  meeting : 

11  Tht  condition  of  tht  loyal  Union  ptoplt  it  littlf 
belter  than  undor  the  dctpotum  of  tht  Southern 
Confederacy.  What  that  was,  go  ask  our  friends 
in  Hast  Tennest-e.  East  Tonnesee,  illustrious  in 
her  sorrow  and  the  blood  of  her  martyrs.  Go 
to  the  prison  cull*,  where  hundreds  pined  in 
wretchudne<m,  rather  than  pollute  their  »ouls  by 
•wearing  allegiance  to  a  puw«r  they  condemned. 
Go  to  the  gibbet*,  where  the  patriots  Hauii  and 
Harmon,  the  father  and  tha  son,  and  Henshie 
and  Fry,  passed  upward  along  tho  shining  path- 


way  to  glory.  There  see  what  treason  did  in 
the  plentitude  of  its  power ;  and  what  it  wants 
but  the  opportunity  to  do  again." 

"  With  the  same  traitor  editors  as  before  and 
during  the  war,  pardoned,  it  may  be,  but  mani- 
festly unchanged  in  temper  and  purpose,  there 
it  displayed  the  tame  sectional  spirit  and  hatred  of 
the  Federal  Government,  though  not  the  same 
stomach  for  fight.  Under  a  thin  disguise  of  flat- 
tery of  the  President,  they  assail  his  friends  who 
have  stood  by  him  all  through  the  dark  years  of 
the  conflict,  and  villify  those  whom  they  call  the 
Radicals,  meaning  all  Union  men  who  opposed 
their  infamous  course,  and  who  are  now  unwilling 
that  they  should  again  be  restored  to  power  ocer 
loyal  men.  Their  diurnal  venom  affords  the 
strongest  argument  against  the  admission  to  their 
seats  of  your  Congressional  representation.  This 
remark  applies,  with  few  exceptions,  to  the  South- 
ern press. 

"  The  ideas  and  principles  of  the  rebellion  are 
constantly  instilled  by  it  into  the  popular  mind. 
Let  no  Union  man,  high  or  low,  court  the  favor 
of  traitors.  He  will  never  win  it.  From  the  first 
they  have  held  him  as  their  enemy,  and  to  the  last 
they  will  be  his."  Every  Union  man  who  puts 
bia  trust  in  them  will  sooner  or  later  find  it  out. 
Be  wise,  I  beseech  you  in  time  ! 

Read  also  from  Col.  Stokes'  letter  to  the  same 
meeting : 

"Take  time!  take  time!  It  is  the  duty  of 
congress  not  to  let  the  members  walk  right  in 
and  take  the  oath,  regardless  of  any  questions, 
and  walk  to  the  Treasury  Department  and  draw 
their  pay.  I  know  it  is  very  acceptable.  But 
congress  is  not  going  to  do  that  thing.  Congress 
ought  not  to  do  it.  Its  duty  is  to  guaranty  to 
every  State  a  republican  form  of  government, 
and  examine  the  laws  passed  in  pursuance  there- 
of. It  is  the  duty  of  congress  to  examine  and 
see  who  voted  for  the  amendments  to  the  Con- 
stitution. To  examine  and  see  what  class  of 
men  sit  in  your  legislature ;  what  sort  of  laws 
they  are  passing.  When  a  member  comes  up 
there  with  his  papers  all  right,  and  is  a  Union 
man — a  loyal  man — why,  then,  congress  will  ad- 
mit him  at  the  appropriate  time.  The  idea  of 
admitting  these  men — that  this  congress  is  de- 
nounced for  keeping  them  out— admitting 
members  that  had  been  at  war  for  four  years ! 
Yet  they  are  dissatisfied.  Unless  congress  will 
take  them  within  a  few  days,  they  cannot  wait. 
Take  lime ;  let  congress  take  time  ;  and  when  it 
does  the  work,  let  it  be  well  done." 

And  hear  him  again  in  his  last  letter  to  his 
friends  in  Tennessee : 

"  I  am  again  on  my  way  to  Washington  to 
help  the  Union  men  to  restore  law  and  order ! 
I  am  regardless  who  deviates  to  the  right  or  to 
the  left.  If  some  men  choose  to  go  astray,  even 
if  they  be  high  in  authority,  I  have  taken  no 
oath  to  follow  any  man.  Tour  friends  in  Wash- 
inglon  are.  the  Union  men  in  Congress.  Sometimes 
they  are  termed  Radicals.  I  don't  care  what 
..  ..  I  ci"  *  "  '  "  "  ' 


I  repeat.  Some  of  them  are  a  little  extreme  in 
some  of  their  views,  but  still  you  must  remem- 
ber that  these  Union  men  are  the  ones  who  saved 
our  Government  in  1861,  when  it  required  all  the 
energy  and  courage  of  man  to  meet  the  dreadful 
crisis.  Are  they  not  the  men  whom  you  should 
trust  now  with  the  reins  of  Government!" 

The  following  from  Gen.  Hatch,  from  hig 
sworn  testimony  • 

"  Q  What,  in  your  opinion,  would  be  the 
condition  of  aflairs  in  the  Middle  and  West  Ten- 
nesee,  should  our  military  force  be  withdrawn 
from  those  portions  of  the  State  1  A.  The  loyal 
portion  of  the  people  would  be  subject  to  cer- 
tain ostracism,  which  would  drive  them  out  of 
the  country.  They  would  legislate  against  them 
in  every  way,  at  least,  I  have  often  heard  them 
say  so. 

"  Q.  Do  I  understand  yon  to  say  that  the  dis- 
loyal people  there  gay  that  they  would  legislate 
against  the  loyal  white  people?  A.  Yes  sir; 
they  say  that  those  people  who  opposed  them  in 
this  war  shall  not  hold  office  there  ;  that  is,  that 
they  will  not  vote  for  any  of  them,  and  that  all 
civil  offices  shall  be  held  by  their  own  men  ;  that 
is  the  way  they  have  always  talked  to  me." 

Read  also  the  following  from  late  Washington 
papers,  facts  about  which  there  is  no  question : 

"  WASHINGTON,  March  15. — The  Committee 
on  Reconstruction  have  reported  the  testimony 
of  Gen.  Custar,  who  stated  that  he  had  traveled 
over  the  South,  and  found  the  people  exceed- 
ingly bitter  against  the  Government — more  so 
than  a  few  months  ago.  The  grand  juries  have, 
within  a  few  months  past,  found  500  indictments 
for  the  murder  of  Union  men  and  others,  but 
not  one  has  been  convicted." 

"PERSECUTED  FOR  LOYALTY.— Seventy-five 
members  of  the  Society  of  Friends  from  Ran- 
dolph county,  N.  C..  have  arrived  at  Washing- 
ton, en  route  to  Indiana,  and  assert  that  they 
we're  forced  to  leave  their  homes  from  the  per- 
secution of  ex-soldiers  of  the  Rebel  army. 
They  state  that  at  least  150  more  of  their  per- 
suasion, bound  for  the  West,  will  arrive  in  a 
few  days." 

This  is  the  logic  that  comes  to  you  from  the 
very  men  whom  you  are  implored  to  admit,  in 
order  that  they  may  be  heard.  The  radicals  of 
congress,  they  tell  you,  are  their  true  friends  ? 
And  does  not  old  Parson  Brownlow  join  them 
in  declaring  that  if  the  oversight  and  protection 
of  the  Government  were  withdrawn,  the  lives  of 
Union  men  would  not  be  safe  ?  Why,  this 
Southern  State  says  to  us,  "  take  time,  we  can 
wait."  True,  it  may  be  proper  to  admit  Ten- 
n'esaee  soon.  But  these  Unionists  say  to  us, 
'•Do  not  hasten  reconstruction,  if  it  is  going  to 
impair  our  saf«ty  or  endanger  the  integrity  of 
thu  Union." 


litionist  in  1861.    The  Radicals  are  your  friends,  |  not  but  be  disastrous.    Twenty-two  rebel  sena- 


13 


tors  will  be  thrnst  into  the  senate  and  seventy* 
fire  members  into  the  house  of  representatives 
(thirteen  being  added  by  the  liberation  of  the 
slaves),  giving  to  one  white  voter  of  the  South 
the  same  power  that  two  have  in  the  North,  and 
throwing  at  once  the  whoie  power  of  the  gov- 
ernment into  (he  hands  of  rebels  and  rebel 
sympathizers.  Your  loyal  whites  in  the  South 
would  be  made  odius. 

EFFECTS   UPOH   THE   FBEBDMEN. 

I  might  say  much  more  of  the  wrong  you 
would  do  the  freedmen  by  the  policy  which  is 
proposed,  of  the  great  wrong  you  would 
do  to  the  four  millions  of  blacks  who  are 
inquiring  the  way  to  freedom.  The  Senator 
from  the  Twentieth  said  that  slavery  was  abol- 
ished. I  tell  you  that  slavery  is  not  abolished. 
The  mere  form  has  been  stricken  from  the  stat- 
ute books ;  but  the  spirit  still  exists.  Read 
the  laws  of  all  the  States  of  the  South,  and  you 
find  that  they  still  treat  the  blacks  everywhere 
as  slaves.  Why,  sir,  the  States  of  the  South, 
if  received  in  their  present  temper,  could  and 
would  enact  laws  that  would  make  it  far  more 
intolerable  for  the  blacks  than  before  the  war. 
Look  at  the  statutes  of  South  Carolina.  Here 
you  find  a  section  which  specifies  that  an 
employer  shall  always  be  addressed  as 
"master,"  and  an  employe  as  "servant" 

Here  it  is  from  the  laws  of  1865  : 

Sec.  35  says  "All  persons  of  color  who  make 
contracts  for  service  or  labor  shall  be  known  as 
servants,  and  those  with  whom  they  contract 
r  hall  be  known  as  MASTERS." 

Is  not  that  the  venom  of  the  old  spirit  crop- 
ping out?  They  cannot  bear  to  have  their  free  men 
address  them  aa  men.  But  if  the  evil  consisted 
wholly  in  the  name,  that  would  not  be  so  bad. 
What  else  do  these  South  Carolina  rebels  do 
They  provide  that  no  negro  shall  exercise  the  free 
man's  right  to  own  fire  arms  ;  that  he  shall  no1 
work  at  a  trade  ;  that  he  shall  not  hire  himself 
upon  his  own  terms ;  that  his  master  may,  for  the 
purpose  of  discipline,  inflict  upon  him  corpora 
punishment.  What  would  you  think  of  enact- 
ing such  oppressive  statutes  for  the  free  white 
workingmen  of  the  North  t  Tot  that  is  the 
condition  of  these  freedmen.  That  is  the  con- 
dition they  will  remain  in  until  tome  other 
great  struggle  shall  occur,  unless  you  hare 
guaranties  for  their  lights,  and  incorporate  those 
guaranties  upon  the  constitution  —  unless  you 


all  the  steps  in  the  direction  of  reconstrnc- 
ion  carefully,  and  with  a  high  regard  for  prin- 
iples  of  justice. 

Hon.  John  Covode  who  had  been  sen,t  by  Pres- 
dent  Johnson  to  examine  into  the  condition  of 
he  southern  states  lately  testified  before  the 
reconstruction  committee  : 

"  I  might  be  able  to  state  the  substance  of  the 
onclnsions ;  one  of  them  I  recollect  distinctly 
was  to  this  effect,  that  if  the  Rebel  element  was 
•llowed  to  vote  in  the  South  at  that  time,  every 
member  who  would  be  returned  to  Congress 
would  be  hostile  to  the  policy  of  the  Federal 
Government,  not  only  as  regards  the  payment 
of  the  National  debt,  but  in  reference  to  emanci- 
>ation  of  the  negroes ;  that  while  they  expressed 
i  willingness  to  submit  to  principles  of  the 
Emancipation  Proclamation  they  always  coupled 
with  it  the  determination  to  regulate  their  own 
affairs  in  that  respect,  stating  that  they  would 
lave  an  organised  system  of  negro  labor  which 
they  would  construct  for  themselves ;  over  and 
over  again  in  conversation  in  New  Orleans  I 
:ieard  them  sayiug  that  they  could  make  a  con- 
dition of  affairs  better  for  themselves  than  it  was 
t>efore ;  they  said  that  Government  had  freed  the 
negroes  and  should  be  made  to  take  care  of  the 
cripples  and  those  who  were  not  able  to  work, 
while  they  wo\ild  regulate  and  control  the  labor 
of  the  able  bodied." 

EFFECTS  OF  THE  DEMOCRATIC  THEORY   CPOS  LAWS 
PASSED   DURING  THE   REBELLION. 

There  are  some  who  undertake  to  say  that 
the  States  have  always  been  entitled  to  re- 
presentation in  Congress.  But  if  you  as- 
sume that,  then  a  very  large  proportion  of 
the  laws  enacted  since  the  war  began,  and,  for 
aught  I  know,  the  law  upon  which  your  federal 
bonds  are  issued,  must  be  unconstitutional  and 
void. 

Mr.  H.  C.  MURPHY— I  would  like  to  ask  the 
gentleman  whether,  in  his  opinion,  the  acts  of 
Andrew  Johnson,  as  Senator  of  Tennessee,  after 
the  opening  of  the  rebellion,  were  or  were  not 
constitutional  acts  f 

Mr.  LOW — It  is  a  question  how  far  or  when 
a  state  can,  by  her  own  recusancy,  deprive  her 
loyal  citizens  of  rights.  My  own  opinion  Is 
that  Andrew  Johnson  having  been  invested  with 
his  rights  as  Senator,  and  becoming  a  part  of  the 
government,  he  could  not  be  deprived  of  them 
by  a  rebellion  in  which  he  did  not  participate. 
That  i*,  while  Tenneesee  might,  by  revolt, 
change  its  own  relations  to  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment, she  could  not  change  her  obligations,  nor 
annul  any  action  already  and  rightfully  had 
under  the  Constitution. 


14 


Mr.  MURPHY— Then,  if  one  Senator  can 
have  these  rights,  why  may  not  other  Senators 
possess  them  also  ? 

Mr.  LOW  —  That  is  not  the  point  embodied  in 
my  response,  Andrew  Johnson  was  elected 
senator  while  Tennessee  was  a  loyal  state. 

Mr.  MURPHY— The  question  is  a  fair  one. 
Were  United  State  Senators  elected  from  other 
states  after  the  rebellion  began,  legitimately 
qualified  ? 

Mr.  LOW  —  After  the  contest  had  assumed 
the  magnitude  of  a  civil  war,  no  Representa*ives 
from  rebel  states  could  be  elected  to  the  United 
States  Congress. 

Mr.  MURPHY  —  Still  another  question.  I  de- 
sire to  know  whether  iu  the  opinion  of  the  Sena- 
tor, the  Constitution  does  not  act  upon  the  indi- 
vidual in  view  of  his  obligations  as  a  citizen  of 
the  State,  and  judge  him  as  such  ? 

Mr.  LOW — The  Constitution  acts  upon  the 
individual  and  the  State  both,  and  judges  both 
with  equal  force  and  directness. 

Mr.  MURPHY— If  the  Constitution  acts  di- 
rectly upon  individuals,  can  they  be  deprived 
of  their  prerogatives  under  it  1 

Mr.  LOW— What  I  hold  is,  that  the  State 
does  not  get  out  of  the  Union  in  the  sense  of 
losing  its  obligations,  which  it  owes  to  the 
government  but  that  the  citizens  of  the  State, 
forming  its  existing  political  organization, 
did  forfeit  their  rights  under  the  Constitution. 
Under  the  well-known  principle  that  no  man 
shall  take  advantage  of  his  own  wrong,  they 
cannot  now  plead  their  prerogatives  under  the 
Constitution,  in  mitigation  of  their  offense. 

But  the  Senator  has  diverted  me  from  my 
point.  That  is,  that  under  his  theory,  every 
law  enacted  by  Congress  and  signed  by  the  Pres- 
ident, during  the  period  when  the  Southern 
States  were  without  representatives  upon  the 
floor,  is  void,  for  the  want  of  what  he  would 
call  a  constitutional  quorum.  What  did  the 
government  do  when  these  States  absented  them- 
selves from  the  national  council  ?  It  made  a 
rule  that  a  majority  of  the  loyal  States  should 
constitute  a  quorum,  and  that  the  business  of 
the  country  should  be  done  by  them.  Admit 
them  upon  this  theory,  say  to  them  that 
hey  are  now  and  always  have  been  entitled  to 
representation,  and  they  would  declare  your 
laws  invalid  at  once.  And  if  the  theory  of  the 
Senator  is  correct,  they  would  do  so  with  entire 
jright,  and  you  would  be  powerless  to  find  a 


remedy,  and  without  a   reasonable  ground  of 
complaint. 

WOULD  THKT  REPUDIATE  THE  NATIONAL  DEBT  ? 

I  have  been  asked  whether  I  believed  that 
they  would  repudiate  the  National  debt.  I  am 
not  prepared  to  say  that  I  think  they  would 
do  so  at  once.  But  they  would  by  covert 
and  unfriendly  legislation  practically  repu- 
diate ;  they  would  make  a  special  move- 
ment with  a  view  to  legalizing  the  Rebel  debt. 
Only  the  other  day  a  Democratic  member  of 
Congress,  from  New  Jersey,  proclaimed  that 
there  was  no  authority  or  power  in  Congress  to 
force  a  repudiation  of  the  rebel  debt.  The 
thing  seems  monstrous  now,  but  these  Demo- 
crats say  so  ;  the  "  reconstructed"  traitors  say 
now  that  they  do  not  intend  to  pay  this  debt  — 
and  who  is  bold  enough  to  say  that  they  would 
never  attempt  to  legalize  the  rebel  debt  ?  They 
would  not  at  first  demand  it  as  a  right.  They 
would  approach  you  through  the  avenue  indi- 
cated by  the  gentleman  from  the  Twentieth  the 
other  night.  They  would  seek  it  as  a  measure  of 
harmony,  of  forgiveness,  of  conciliation.  They 
would  say  that  "  you  simply  got  into  a  family 
quarrel."  That  is  the  new  way  of  phrasing 
the  late  great  struggle — "  a  family  quarrel." 
And  "  now  let  UB  compromise  as  brothers  and  pay 
them  both."  Why  tax  cotton  to  pay  the 
Union  debt,  and  refuse  to  let  the  rebels 
meet  their  own  ?  The  argument  will  be  irresis- 
tible to  that  class  of  men  who  at  present 
are  so  careful  of  the  rights  of  our  "  mi?guided 
Southern  brethren."  How  long,  with  a  power 
of  control  in  Congress,  do  you  believe  they 
would  tolerate  this  tax  upon  cotton,  the  tax 
upon  incomes,  the  productive  tariff.  The  spirit 
of  the  South  gives  reason  to  apprehend  dan- 
ger from  this  source.  Such  is  the  testimony 
of  those  who  have  been  through  the  States,  and 
have  become  familiar  with  their  spirit.  Such  is 
the  almost  unanimous  testimony  of  your  Union 
Generals,  like  General  Thomas  and  others. 

THE  DANGER  IS  NOT  TET  OVER. 

It  is  five  long  years  since  this  great  battle  for 
free  government  was  inaugurated  by  the  call 
to  arms. 

Costly  have  been  the  sacrifices  and  terrible  the 
srtain  upon  the  faith  and  courage  of  our  people. 
More  than  once  have  our  noble  armies  been 
borne  back,  broken  and  bloody  from  disastrous 


15 


fields,  and  the  bulletins  have  told  of  thousands 
and  tens  of  thousands  of  brave  men  fallen  for 
their  country,  carrying  lamentation  and  woe  to 
every  hamlet  in  the  land.  Again  and  again  has 
lhe  cry  come  to  our  ears  that  "  "Washington  was 
in  danger,"  and  our  sons  have  rushed  to  the 
rescue. 

We  have  had  our  Bull  Run,  our  Gaines 
Mills,  our  Fredricksburgh,  our  Chancellorsville 
and  our  Chickamauga,  each  appalling  in  their 
sacrifices  and  threatening  dark  disaster  and 
danger  to  pur  cause. 

And  the  peril  is  not  yet  over ;  the  shadow  of  a 
great  danger  hangs  over  the  land  to-night.  True 
it  is  that  no  rebel  army  with  frowning  cannon 
and  serried  bayonets  threatens  your  towns,  or 
seeks  the  overthrow  of  your  government,  but 
what  the  rebel  army  failed  to  do  with  bayonet 
and  cannon,  is  now  sought  to  be  accomplished 
under  the  specious  guise  of  restoring  the  Union 
and  reconstructing  the  ttatet ;  the  same  wicked 
and  treasonable  elements  are  again  at  work,  and 
the  same  dangerous  league  of  the  foes  of  free 
republican  government,  which  but  one  year  ago 
sought  your  ruin  by  rebellion  and  civil  war ; 
have  again  conspired  to  effect  it  by  lying 
intrigue  and  deceptive  friendship.  They  tempt 
your  eminent  statesmen  and  public  men  by 
appealing  to  their  pride  and  ambition,  and  hold- 
ing up  to  their  view  as  the  price  of  their  recre- 
ancy, expectant  honors  and  rewards,  and  while 
with  their  arm  around  your  neck  they  call  you 
brother,  they  drive  the  stiletto  to  your  heart.  It 
were  better  that  Washington  had  fallen,  that  no 
stone  of  its  marble  pillars  should  be  left  upon 
another  than  that  you  now  turn  over  the  vast 
and  sacred  interests  of  the  government  into  the 
hands  of  unrepentant  rebels,  and  be  guilty  of 
black  ingratitude  to  the  loyalists  and  freedmen 
of  the  south. 

Who  are  the  men  who  now  denounce  your 
Congress,  and  hbout  their  praises  of  rejoicing 
over  the  supposed  policy  of  the  President 

The  same  who  a  few  months  ago  commanded 
the  rebel  armies,  guided  rebel  bayonets  and 
pointed  the  rebel  cannon ;  the  same  who  shot 
down  your  sons  upon  the  bloody  field  and 
starved  and  murdered  them  at  Andorsonville 
and  Libby  Prison,  who  hunted  them  wiih  blood- 
hounds and  made  "ornaments  of  their  boues,'' 
who  fired  your  cities,  robbed  your  frontier  towns, 
burued  your  ships,  poisoned  you  by  infected 
clothing,  and  filially  culminated  their  giaut 
crimes  by  the  deliberate  and  cold-blooded  as- 


sassination of  your  President.  The  same  men  at 
.he  North  who  cheered  and  aided  the  rebellion 
all  through  the  war,  who  never  voted  "  a  man 
or  a  dollar,"  who  pronounced  your  currency 
'rags"  and  your  soldiers  "hirelings,"  who 
saddened  at  our  victories  and  rejoiced  over  our 
defeats,  who  resisted  your  marshals  and  shot 
down  those  who  enforced  the  laws,  who  burned 
•our  orphan  asylums  and  beat  to  death  little 
children  in  your  streets. 

All  that  is  despotic  and  cruel  and  vicious  in 
the  land,  join  hands  and  unite  in  praising  the 
policy  of  surrendering  to  traitors,  and  in  de- 
nouncing, with  the  coarsest  insult  and  most 
.hreatening  menaces,  your  Congress  elected  by 
your  votes  and  representing  your  will. 

WHAT    OF    COJfGEESS? 

And  what  is  this  congress,  so  vilified  by  rebel* 
at  the  South  and  rebel  sympathizers  at  the 
JJorth  ?  Were  a  stranger  to  land  upon  our 
shores,  he  would  suppose  that  they  were  an 
aggregation  of  tyrants,  a  self  constituted  bond 
of  despots  who  had  overturned  the  Government 
and  were  ruling  the  country  by  the  strong  baud 
of  arbitrary  power. 

Could  unbridled  insolence  go  farther  than 
this  T  No  nobler,  purer  or  more  patriotic  body 
of  men  ever  assembled  in  your  legislative  halls, 
embracing  fifteen  general  officers  from  the  Union 
army,  and  composed  largely  of  the  same  men 
who,  by  their  wisdom  in  the  forum,  and  by 
their  bravery  in  the  field,  carried  our  country 
through  its  terrible  and  bloody  struggle  of  rebel- 
lion and  civil  war.  They  are  the  men  who,  when 
treason  assailed  the  Union,  stood  between  it  and 
them,  and  saved  the  Constitution.  They  have 
assumed  the  right  ground.  I  trust  in  God  they 
will  stay  there,  regardless  who  may  go  to  the 
right  hand  or  the  left. 

Congress  is  right,  and  the  nation  will  sustain 
its  action.  What  ground  exists  for  all  this 
complaint?  Point  me  to  a  single  usurpation 
accomplished  or  attempted.  Show  me  a  single 
letter  of  the  Constitution  violated.  Why,  then, 
this  abuse  ?  Why  this  denunciation  T  I  tell 
you,  the  real  reason  is  because  Congress  has 
been  true — because  it  has  refused  to  forfeit  its 
claim  upon  our  confidence  by  abandoning  its 
post  of  duty — because  it  stands  like  a  bulwark, 
firm  and  impregnable  against  every  sort  of  at- 
tempted wrong. 

I  hare  no  doubt  that  Congreu  will  continue 
to  be  true,  and  that  it  will  defend  and  carry  out 


16 


to  the  last,  the  objects  with  which  it  is  entrusted. 
But  whether  it  did  or  not,  we  should  still  have 
no  recourse  but  to  stand  by  our  principles. 
There  are  some  who  tell  us  that  if  we  do  so  we 
will  ruin  the  party.  I  have  no  fears  of  that. 
You  can  never  break  a  party  which  was  founded 
upon  principles  so  noble,  and  which  has  en- 
dured all  the  shocks  of  a  tremendous  civil  war, 
upon  a  MAU  or  a  LEADER.  So  long  as  we  are 
right  on  principle,  so  long  as  we  do  not  surren- 
der any  of  the  ideas  which  have  carried  us 
forward  so  successfully  in  the  past,  there  is  no 
reason  to  fear  any  danger.  You  will  break  the 
party,  if  at  all,  when  you  desert  principle  and 
become  untrue  to  the  obligations  of  duty.  You 
have  not  broken  it  in  New  Hampshire  where 
the  issue  was  clearly  and  boldly  drawn  ;  where 
both  the  Senators  and  all  the  Members  of  Con- 
gress were  united  in  giving  expression  to-  the 
determination  of  the  Union  majority  at  the  North. 
And  you  will  not  break  it  in  any  State  where 
the  representatives  of  the  party  stand  up  man- 
fully for  its  principles. 

WHAT    OF     THE   PBESIDEKT  1 

It  is  well  that  we  should  speak  very  plainly 
and  frankly  our  views  upon  this  subject — that 
if  we  do  not  think  the  action  cf  the  President 
was  wise  and  right,  we  should  say  so.  I  know 
there  are  some  gentlemen  who  are  very 
chary  of  expressing  the  feelings  that  are  in 
them,  because  of  an  apprehension  that  they 
will  hurt  somebody.  I  believe  that  the  Presi- 
dent will  much  more  respect  those  who  frankly 
tell  him  the  truth,  than  those  who  deceive  him, 
mislead  him,  and  induce  him  to  think  he  is 
supported  loj  the  unanimous  sentiment  of  the 
country,  until  he  finds  to  his  regret  and  his 
cost,  that  the  fact  is  otherwise.  I  for  one  am 
unwilling  to  say  to  the  President  that  I  believe 
he  is  right  and  should  be  supported,  when  I 
feel  that  he  is  wrong. 

We  cannot  mistake  the  fact  that  the  veto 
message  was  received  with  profound  astonish- 
ment, and  regret  by  a  very  large  majority  of  the 
loyal  people  of  the  North.  But  that  was  not  the 
temper  displayed  by  the  Rebels  of  the  South. 
They  hailed  it  as  a  victory  for  the  South  as 
a  practical  subjugation  of  the  Union  party  of  the 
free  States — as  the  greatest  victory  that  had 
been  achieved  for  them  and  for  their  ideas, 
since  the  days  when  Beauregard  triumphed  over 
the  defenders  of  the  Union 


The  President  may  have  done  that  which  by 
virtue  of  his  office  he  has  no  right  to  do.  It 
does  not  involve  a  separation  from  him  to  say 
so,  fully  and  frankly — that  is  not  an  attack  upon 
him  in  his  legitimate  position,  and  in  the  exer- 
cise of  his  undoubted  powers.  So  far  as  he  has 
attempted  legislative  powers,  he  has  made  a 
very  grave  mistake.  H«  had  great  power  under 
the  military  authority  vested  in  him  by  the 
Constitution,  to  mould  and  direct  the  work  of 
reconstruction,  and  this  power,  it  was  perfectly 
proper  that  he  should  exercise.  But  it  was  not 
proper  for  him  to  go  beyond  this,  and  under- 
take to  conduct  in  his  own  person  the  legisla- 
tion of  the  country.  He  should  have  recognized 
the  emergency  and  called  Congress  together 
to  accomplish  the  great  work  of  reorganizing 
the  States.  It  is  my  deliberate  judgment  that 
when  he  failed  to  call  Congress  together  after 
the  assassination  of  our  noble  manyr  President 
Abraham  Lincoln,  and  the  surrender  of  the 
armies  of  Lee  and  Johnston,  he  committed  a 
grave  blunder ;  the  evil  effect  of  which  we 
will  fe«l  for  many  years  to  come.  At  that  time, 
the  rebels  were  confounded  and  disheartened. 
Congress  could  have  prescribed  any  eoncessions 
it  deemed  essential  to  secure  the  welfare  of  the 
country,  andlhey  would  have  accepted  them  at 
once,  and  gladly,  as  a  condition  of  being  al- 
lowed to  exist  and  have  any  public  rights 
whatever.  That  was  our  golden  oppor- 
tunity— our  opportunity  to  fix  the  penal- 
ties of  those  traitors  who  deserved  condign 
punishment,  to  disfranchise  them  from  office,  to 
confiscate  their  property,  to  prescribe  the  terms 
upon  which  the  large  body  of  the  people  might 
return  to  the  privileges  of  citizenship.  This 
was,  I  say,  our  golden  opportunity.  The  Presi- 
dent threw  it  away ;  in  this  he  erred  most 
grievously.  We  should  not  hesitate  to  declare  so. 

I  am  told,  whenever  I  approach  this  subject 
in  a  spirit  of  frankness,  that  I  "  must  not  irri- 
tate the  President."  I  am  sorry  to  hear  that 
sort  of  argument  employed.  In  my  judgment, 
it  is  not  creditable  to  the  President,  nor  to  the 
high  office  he  fills.  "  Irritate  the  President !  " 
Why,  who  ever  heard  of  "  irritating  "  Abraham 
Lincoln,  or  Thomas  Jefferson,  or  George  Wash- 
ington, or  either  of  ihose  great  predecessors  of 
the  present  incumbent,  whose  names  have  shed 
a  lustre  of  glory  upon  American  history  ? 
Or  who  really  believes  that  Andrew 
Johnson,  with  his  firm  convictions,  his  high 


sense  of  personal  independence  and  his  deter- 
mined resolution,  will  become  irritated  by 
what  is  said  concerning  him  among  the  people, 
or  by  the  acts  which  Congress  feels  called  upon 
to  perform  in  Ihe  exercise  of  its  legislative 
functions  ?  I  say,  it  is  belittling  to  the  office, 
and  uncomplimentary  to  the  man.  He  will  not 
thank  you  for  that  sort  of  policy  or  for  that  line 
of  defence.  The  only  support  he  can  derive 
from  the  American  people  is  that  which  is 
founded  upon  a  high  conviction  of  the  straight- 
forwardness of  the  course  he  is  pursuing.  He 
acts  from  convictions,  and  I  would  be  the  last 
one  to  say  that  he  does  not  intend,  fully 
and  conscientiously,  to  perform  his  duty. 


Bat  he  is  human,  and  it  is  possible  for 
him  to  be  mistaken.  If  he  goes  wrong,  we  should 
not  favor  him,  and  sacrifice  the  interests  of  the 
country  from  fear  that  we  may  wound  his  feel- 
ings. If  he  goes  right,  we  should  give  him  an 
earnest  and  cordial  support.  But  we  should,  in 
any  case,  speak  what  we  think,  earnestly,  can- 
didly and  truthfully,  entirely  regardless  of  men 
and  their  ambition. 

TAKE   TIME. 

Why  are  our  democratic  friends  so  anxious  to 
have  the  rebels  back  in  the  councils  of  the 
nation.  To  hear  them  talk  about  it,  you  would 
thiuk  the  matter  waa  one  upon  whose  immedi- 
ate decision  depended  the  issues  of  life  and 
death.  They  cannot  stand  it  another  month, 
hardly  another  day.  Why  this  haste  in  admit- 
ting them  back  to  power,  what  wrong  are  they 
suffering  by  a  reasonable  delay  to  ascertain  their 
condition  and  their  wants  T  for  five  years  of 
bloody  strife,  they  have  refused  to  acknowledge 
allegiance  to  the  government,  and  sought  the 
destruction  of  our  liberties  and  our  lives ;  the 
blood  of  murdered  martyrs  still  cling  to  their 
garments  and  stain  their  hands.  I  want  the 
blood  washed  from  their  garments,  and  the 
stain*  cleansed  from  their  hands  before  they  are 
thrust  into  Congress,  to  make  laws  for  the  men 
they  sought  to  kill. 


only  absolution  to  the  traitors  but  honors  and 
rewards;  and  doom  the  suffering  loyalist  to 
ignominy  and  disgrace  t 

You  began  by  the  declaration  that  "  treason 
should  be  made  odious  and  traitors  should  be 
punished  for  their  crimes."  You  end  by  exalt- 
ing treason  into  a  virtue  and  elevating  traitors  to 
positions  of  trust  and  honor.  For  it  is  a  con- 
ceded fact  proved  by  the  testimony  of  our  gen- 
eral officers  that  in  nearly  all  the  states  recon- 
structed under  the  President's  policy  the  largest 
portion  of  the  office  holders  under  the  State 
government  as  reconstructed  are  unrepentant 
rebels.  Many  of  them  freah  from  the  battle 
fields  of  the  rebellion. 

This  dangerous  and  wicked  policy  must  be 
arrested.  We  have  for  five  years  struggled 
through  fire  and  blood  for  the  vindication  of  our 
jrinciples  and  the  salvation  of  the  country.  We 
supposed  we  had  conquered  and  that  triumph 
lad  crowned  our  arms.  True  we  have  triumph- 
ed on  the  field,  but  the  conflict  is  not  jet  closed; 
The  weapons  only  are  changed  and  the  theater 
of  the  contest.  The  bullet  has  been  changed  to 
the  ballot,  and  the  fight  from  the  camp  and  the 
fortress  to  the  forum  and  legislative  halls. 

But  I  still  have  confidence  in  the  spirit  of  the 
North.  Their  energy  has  not  abated  nor  has 
their  vigilance  gone  to  rest.  Their  treasure  has 
been  poured  out  like  water  and  their  bravest 
and  their  best  gone  down  in  blood,  but  they 
hare  not  faltered;  and  will  not  now,  cowards 
may  go  over  to  the  enemy,  and  the  timid  fall  out 
of  the  ranks,  but  with  steady  tread  and  firm 
array  they  are  "  marching  on  "  to  the  great  con- 
summation of  their  mission,  and  to  ultimate  vic- 
tory and  triumph. 

With  ETERNAL  JUSTICE  for  their  motto,  the  old 
flag  for  their  banner,  with  the  true  loyalty  of  the 
country  for  their  support,  the  right  will  triumph 
and  the  wrong  be  forever  crushed. 

"God  changes  his  workmen  but  the  work 
goes  on." 


OHUtITT,  rOROIVKHBSB. 

Nothing  can  be  lost  by  delay  and  caution 
but  in  my  judgment  everything  may  and  will  be 
lost  if  this  attempt  to  precipitate  action  by  brow- 
beating and  bullying  Congress,  shall  prevail. 

What  will  be  the  effect  of  such  a  course  of 
action  npon  the  future,  will  It  not  encourage 
future  rebellions  when  yon  thus  promise  not 


KXPLAJTATOBT   ROTE. 

My  position  in  regard  to  the  question  of 
secession— of  the  right  of  a  State  to  break  away 
from  the  Union — is  greatly  misunderstood  even 
by  the  State  paper  (for  they  would  not  inten- 
tionally misrepresent  me),  perhaps  my  language 
was  not  well  chosen  to  express  the  idea.  I  will 
again  briefly  state  the  argument.  I  utterly  deny 
all  right  on  the  part  of  a  State  to  withdraw  from 


the  Union.  There  is  no  shadow  of  foundation 
for  such  claim  in  the  organic  law,  but  I  aver  that 
nevertheless  a  State  may  wrongfully,  by  violence 
and  revolution,  break  away  from  the  Union  if  it 
has  the  power  to  do  so,  establish  and  maintain 
a  separate  existence.  This  though  a  wrongful 
separation  is  still  an  actual  existing  fact  against 
which  all  the  powers  of  logic  and  argument  are 
unavailing.  Suppose  that  the  Union  army  had 
been  captured  at  Gettysburgh  and  destroyed  at 
Vicksburgh,  and  the  Confederate  Government 
had  become  a  fixed  fact,  permanently  established, 
and  the  United  States  had  withdrawn  from  the 
contest,  does  any  one  doubt  ttat  there  would 
have  been  an  actual  breaking  away  from  the 
General  Government,  not,  it  is  true,  accom- 
plished by  virtue  of  rights  derived  under  the 
Constitution,  but  wrongfully  done  by  cannon 
and  bayonet  and  superior  physical  force.  There 
was  no  constitutional  or  legal  right  on  the  part 
of  Texas  to  secede  from  the  Mexican  Republic, 
yet  she  did,  by  force  and  violence,  secede  and 
break  away  from  the  parent  state. 

Galileo  was  forced  by  torture  to  acknowledge 
that  the  earth  stood  still,  but  when  his  tormentors 
had  stepped  away,  he  still  muttered  "the  earth 
does  move."  This  brings  us  to  our  next  propo- 
sition. 

The  states  not  only  had  no  right  to  break 
away  under  the  Constitution,  but  in  this  case 
they  did  not  succeed  in  doing  so  by  force.  The 
government  was  too  strong  for  them  and  they 
were  defeated  in  their  attempt,  so  that  the  con- 
elusion  follows  that  neither  rightfully  nor  wrong- 
fully did  they  get  out  of,  or  break  away  from  the 
Union. 

All  this  I  grant  and  agree  that  the  State  as  a 
State  did  not  secede  or  get  out  of  the  Union,  but 
here  comes  the  point  which  I  make  and  which 
is  misunderstood  and  confouuded  with  the  ques- 
tion of  "  State  suicide."  That  is,  that  although 
the  State  failed  in  its  wrongful  endeavor  to 
break  away  from  the  Union,  yet  the  people  and 
inhabitants  living  therein  in  this  attempt  com- 
mitted a  GREAT  CEIME,  A  MONSTROUS  WRONG,  for 
which  they  are  tried  by  the  WORLD'S  TRIBUNAL, 
the  laws  of  war  and  nations,  and  are  adjudged  as 
individuals  and  communities  to  have  forfeited 
their  former  relations  to  the  parent  government 
and  lost  the  prerogatives  and  immunities  to 
which  they  were  entitled  before  their  crime  was 
committed. 

In  this  -wrongful  and  wicked  effort  to  do  by 
violence  that  which  they  could  not  claim  as  a 


right  they  have  been  guilty  of  all  the  horrors  on 
he  calendar  of  crimes,  the  victims  of  their  mur- 
der lie  buried  in  every  vale  and  on  every  hill- 
side in  our  land.  Murder  on  the  field  of  carn- 
age with  bayonet  and  bullet,  murder  in  the 
>rison  pens  with  slow  and  lingering  torments, 
and  murder  in  the  peaceful  town,  where  men  and 
women  were  aroused  from  sleep  to  fall  by  the 
assassin's  knife,  while  robbery  and  arson  and 
assassination  and  treason  are  all  recorded  in 
udgment  against  them. 

These  communities  did  not  lose  their  rights 
and  immunities  under  the  Constitution,  or  for- 
feit their  relations  to  the  Government  by  virtue 
of  an  accomplished  secession  from  the  Union  (for 
in  that  they  failed),  but  by  reason  of  the  crimes 
they  committed  in  the  attempt  to  secede.  If  the 
rime  had  been  committed  by  an  individual,  he 
would  forthwith  have  been  hung ;  but  you  can- 
not hang  whole  communities,  you  forfeit  the 
prerogatives  and  rights  to  which  they  were  be- 
fore entitled,  and  impose  upon  them  such  terms 
of  punishment,  more  or  less  severe,  as  shall 
make  good  the  wrong  to  the  injured  party,  as 
shall  prove  a  warning  to  future  agitators,  and 
as  shall  best  reform  the  offenders. 

It  was  not  necessary  that  they  should  have 
actually  seceded  to  have  become  liable  to  these 
penalties ;  it  was  sufficient  that  they  attempted 
it  by  violence  and  wrong,  and  in  so  doing  com- 
mitted great  crimes. 

It  may  be  likened  to  the  case  of  the  indi- 
vidual who  attempts  to  take  your  life  ;  he  may 
fail  in  the  attempt,  but  he  is  sentenced  and 
imprisoned  in  the  State  prison  for  an  "  attempt 
to  kill."  So  though  in  attempting  to  shoot  yon 
he  had  killed  your  son,  he  would  be  punished 
by  death,  not  for  the  crime  he  intended  to  com- 
mit, but  for  one  which  resulted  indirectly  from 
the  first  wrong. 

The  same  principle  runs  through  all  your 
laws  in  relation  both  to  wrongs  and  contracts. 
If  one  party  to  a  contract  wrongfully  breaks  itt 
the  other  party  may  compel  the  offender  to  per- 
form his  part,  and  in  addition  pay  the  damages 
and  costs  which  have  resulted  from  his- wrongful 
act. 

In  the  case  of  the  individual,  this  is  done  by 
the  judgment  of  the  court  having  jurisdiction  of 
the  case  in  the  county  or  State.  In  the  case  of 
a  community  composing  the  people  of  a  State  or 
nation,  the  adjudication  is  made  by  the  great 
tribunal  of  nations,  the  laws  of  nations  and  war. 

We  do  not  claim  that  States  are  out  of  the 


19 


Union.  The  Government  has  lost  no  right  or 
claim  upon  the  community  composing  the  state. 
We  mean  to  hold  the  State  to  its  obligations. 


and  the  people  to  the  contract.  We  only  ask 
that  they  shall  pay  the  damages  and  cottt  to 
which  the  world's  jury  says  we  are  entitled. 


H 

y 


I 


Santa  Barbara 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW. 


A     001071001     o 


